On 20/09/2010, at 6:41 AM, Arno Trautmann wrote: > \ExplSyntaxNamesOn > \bool_if_p:n{ > \intexpr_compare_p:n {2=3} || > \intexpr_compare_p:n {4=4} > } > \ExplSyntaxNamesOff > > \end{document} > > In SyntaxNames, I get the error > > ! Use of \bool_|_0:w doesn't match its definition. > <argument> \intexpr_compare_p:n {2=3} || > \intexpr_compare_p:n {4=4} > l.16 } > > The use of && is successfull in both cases, though. I guess this is > because the line in ExplSyntax: > > \tex_catcode:D 124=11 \tex_relax:D % vertical bar, other > > is missing in SyntaxNames. > So is it intended that boolean expressions cannot be fully evaluated in > SyntaxNames? Or didn’t anybody have requested this yet? I'd like to hear the opinions of the others; I guess this is an edge case to using SyntaxNames. Ideally, perhaps, we should make \bool_if:n more robust so the catcode of | isn't as critical. -- Will